The 1960s Cultural Revolution: Was it a Triumph for Individualism - Essay Example

?The 1960s Cultural Revolution: Was it a Triumph for Individualism? Introduction The 1960s progressed at a frenetic pace, underscored with rebellion and conflict. McWilliams (2000) states that this was the most tumultous decade in the 20th century. Various forces shaped the cultural revolution during this time, including parts played by the New Left, the antiwar movement, and the counterculture. Among the factors that made the 1960s an extraordinary era were the political activism, protests, music, and social conduct. Anti-Establishment approaches and noncompliance with authority were characterised by the Hippie or “flower children” movement, while the feminist movement gathered strength as a force to contend with, and communism took a firm hold with several governments turning to the Left in the early 1960s. Popular culture including cinema and the media underwent changes, exalting individualism and the concept of ‘self’, as opposed to conventional rules and norms promoting collectivism. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the 1960s Cultural Revolution was a triumph for individualism. Cultural Revolution in the 1960s In the United States popular culture “the Sixties” is a term used in various contexts such as history, journalism and other academic domains. Not only does the term nostalgically denote the counterculture and social revolution near the end of the decade, but also derogatively describes the era as filled with irresponsibility, excesses, and flamboyance. Further, several social taboos such as those related to racism and sexism were brought down, resulting in the decade being labelled as the ‘Swinging Sixties’. The 1960s are considered to be synonymous with the radical and subversive trends of the period which continued to develop in the following decades. The phenomenon is characterised by its mass nature, where people broke free of the social constraints of the previous era by deviating extremely from the norm, as a result of the demand for greater individual freedom. Some commentators such as Booker (1970) perceive a classical Jungian nightmare cycle in this phenomenon, charting the rise, success, fall, nightmare and explosive dissipation, particularly in the west.1968 particularly stood out as the most difficult in the decade of turmoil. Even before the year began, dozens of race riots, frequent episodes of violence and inhumane acts against civil rights activists in the South, and the war in Vietnam dominated the news. There appeared to be no end to the conflict, and the country was falling apart (McWilliams 2000). A highly durable legacy is anticipated from history’s production of an era as momentous and as electrifying as the 1960s. The fast-moving decade appeared to be synonymous with rebellion and conflict. The 1960s stood out from the other decades in the 20th century as a time of challenge, trial, anguish as well as achievement. “No other decade, save the 1860s, when the nation was at war with itself for four years, has been so tumultous” (McWilliams 2001: 1). Americans revolted against conventional moral conduct, violations of civil rights, authoritarianism in universities, gender discrimination, the establishment, and of course, the war in Southeast Asia. Thus, “within a generation, the national consensus forged during the nation’s victorious effort in World War II had come under attack” (McWilliams 2001: 1). A counterculture of hippies or young people in conflict with mainstream society, challenged conventional and widely accepted cultural practices, and adopted an alternative lifestyle. Conflict, disillusionment, and shattering of social harmony were the result of Tom Hayden’s 1962 declaration of counterculture political ideology initiating the emergence of the New Left. Traditional conformity was replaced by unprecedented individualism and the redefining of the conventional code of conduct (Hayden 2005). Change is inevitable and seldom progresses smoothly, but the cultural revolution in the 1960s was not only immense, but pervaded every aspect of American life. “The sixties was an era when Americans did not so much greet the dawn as confront it” (McWilliams 2000: 1). However, contrary to many Americans’ perception of the 1960s being characterised by antisocial behaviour by “baby boomers” who came of age at that time, only a small minority of them were directly involved in student demonstrations, protests against the Vietnam War and other forms of revolt (McWilliams 2000). New Age British Cinema in the 1960s: Reflecting Individualism “The swinging London era of cinema had been mainly London-centred, male-centred, style-centred, fatally self-indulgent” (Richards 1992: 233). A classless consumerist self was exalted, while issues of class, race, region and gender took second place. These concepts reflected in cinema validate the interpretation of the 1960s represented by Martin (1983) who views this decade as the latest manifestation of romanticism, and equates the 1960s to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Romanticism seeks to destroy boundaries, reject conventions, undermine structures and generalizes the decline into low levels, and the rise into the infinite. Its foundation is material prosperity that liberates people from immediate needs for survival, and focuses their attention on their needs for self-expression in terms of personal discovery, self-fulfilment, experience and sensation. During the 1960s, the Romantics opposed a world that was highly structured, traditional and conventional, continuing its Victorian approach. The Romantics advocated a culture of the peripheral or liminalism, in which the “outsider, the rebel and the deviant were heroes, the self was exalted, spontaneity was everything, and rules, restrictions, conventions and traditions, both in art and life, were ditched” (Richards 1992: 233). In relation to films, such an approach had the effect of highlighting fantasy and sexuality rather than serious political engagements. After a duration of time, there is a reaction to romantic excess, and a return to structure and proper framework. Earlier, the rise of evangelicalism and the establishment of Victorian values were followed by such a return to order. Similarly, after the 1960s, it occurred after the 1960s with a return to structure and eventually the rise of Thatcherism. However, there was a change in the order and structure from their earlier forms in the 1960s, and the cultural revolution had long-term effects. Particularly in comedy, the genre of surrealism became popular. The use of the old linear narrative declined, with the audience willing to accept much more fragmented narrative techniques. Further, “cinema took the lead in extending the limits of what was permissible in the depiction of both sexuality and violence” (Richards 1992: 234). Throughout the decade, there was an unprecedented acceptance by audiences to increasing nudity, profanity, more graphic nature of violence, and its greater frequency of depiction. There was declining acceptance of authority as beneficent and paternalistic. The most significant change was that the British culture’s key chivalric ethic which characterised it since the mid-19th century, was rejected. Both disillusionment with the status quo and freedom from restraint are reflected fully in the 1960s cinema, evident in the “violence and cynicism of the spaghetti westerns; in the disgruntlement of the working-class anti-heroes in social realist dramas; in the hedonism and self-indulgence of the Swinging-London films” (Richards 1992: 234). The common factor of all the 1960s genres, forms and films is the celebration of individualism; where the liberated self in pursuit of gratification, is exalted. The gratification took the form of sex, drink and drugs when there was affluence; and the pursuit of money during recession. This new approach adopted by individualism was to eventually plunge the nation into the abyss of Thatcherism (Richards 1992). 1960s Revolution: Towards a Democratic Culture and Individualism Kateb (1992) reiterates that the liberationist movement in the 1960s was not merely a lightweight response to minor complaints of temporary duration. The movement was rooted in rights-based individualism, therefore it continues to extend its influence despite its imperfections and defeats. The will to end shame is the most important aspiration, therefore rights-based individualism forms the basis for feminism, gay rights, racial equality, and other social movements. The group affirmation is not so much a claim to positive virtue or value, as it is an act of resistance to stigmatized identities and functions. A claim to virtue should be considered as compensatory and temporary. Liberal individualism should not be discredited, because by doing so the forces that render people docile will be strengthened. Liberal individualism has inherent resources to resist docility. The dominant sources of modern docility are found not in individualist feelings and practices, but in anti-individualist ones such as “fascism, religious fanaticism, exclusive group identity, state socialism, and power-statism” (Kateb 1992: 238). A perspective that opposes individuality is found in Foucault’s work. Foucault, the French philosopher, social theorist and historian (Strinati 2004) believes that fabricated individuality is worse than collectivist horrors; and he appears to hate modernity so much as to prefer the old underdeveloped order. Foucault’s cautionary doctrine warns against the dangers of turning individualism into an ideological caricature. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the tumultous 1960s Cultural Revolution towards achieving individualism. The various events, movements and changes in cultural issues through the decade have been examined. The evidence indicates the strong core of individualism in the cultural revolution as seen in new age British cinema of the era. The conventional compliance to authority and the establishment was sought to be replaced by a democratic culture underscored by individualism. Even though a particular event does not continue to generate public or media interest, it is likely that its significance, influence and impact endures for several generations. Thus, the events set in motion during the 1960s did not simply and abruptly conclude in 1969. The substitution of docility for rights-based individualism has become rooted in most parts of the world today, towards achieving higher goals in a democratic society both individually and collectively. However, in compliance with Foucault’s warning, it is crucial that the ideological goal of individuality be used in a sustainable manner, without exalting the liberated self in pursuit of gratification. Societal breakdown due to lack of integration and collectivism should be prevented. It is hereby concluded that the 1960s Cultural Revolution was a great triumph for individualism. Bibliography Booker, C. (1970). The neophiliacs: A study of the Revolution in English life in the fifties and sixties. London: Collins. Hayden, T. (2005). The Port Huron statement: The visionary call of the 1960s revolution. The United States of America: Public Affairs. Kateb, G. (1992). The inner ocean: Individualism and democratic culture. New York: Cornell University Press. Martin, B. (1983). A sociology of contemporary cultural change. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell. McWilliams, J.C. (2000). The 1960s cultural revolution. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Richards, J. (1992). New waves and old myths: British cinema in the 1960s. In Moore-Gilbert, B.J. & Seed, J. (Eds). Cultural revolution? The challenge of the arts in the 1960s. London: Routledge. Chapter 11: pp.218-235. Strinati, D. (2004). An introduction to theories of popular culture. London: Routledge. Read More